VINEETA SHARMA v. RAKESH SHARMA (2020)

Posted on February 17, 2026February 18, 2026 by Admin

VINEETA SHARMA v. RAKESH SHARMA (2020)

Constitution Bench (3 Judges)
📅 Decision: 11 August 2020
⚖️ Citation: (2020) 9 SCC 1

🔹 BACKGROUND & LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

Before 2005:

Under Mitakshara law, only male members were coparceners.

Daughters had no birthright in ancestral property.

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:

Inserted a new Section 6

Conferred coparcenary status on daughters

⚠️ However, conflicting Supreme Court judgments created confusion:

Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)

Danamma v. Amar (2018)

👉 Hence, reference to a larger Bench.

🔹 FACTS OF THE CASE

Vineeta Sharma (daughter) claimed equal coparcenary share in joint family property.

Father died before 9-9-2005.

Brothers argued:

Daughter not entitled as father was not alive on amendment date.
Relied on Prakash v. Phulavati.

🔹 QUESTIONS OF LAW

Whether a daughter is entitled to coparcenary rights by birth?
Whether father must be alive on 9-9-2005?
Whether the amendment is prospective / retrospective / retroactive?
What is the effect of partitions prior to 2005?

🔹 STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

Section 6(1), Hindu Succession Act (as amended)

“The daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.”

🔹 DETAILED HOLDINGS OF THE COURT

1️⃣ Daughter is a Coparcener BY BIRTH

Right flows from birth, not from the date of amendment.
Coparcenary is unobstructed heritage.

📌 Key Observation

“Coparcenary rights are conferred by birth, not by the death of the father.”

2️⃣ Father Need NOT Be Alive on 9-9-2005

Court expressly overruled Prakash v. Phulavati.
Living status of father is irrelevant.

📌 Ratio

Daughter’s right is independent of father’s existence.

3️⃣ Nature of the Amendment: RETROACTIVE

The Court clarified:

Term	Meaning
Prospective	Applies only to future events
Retrospective	Alters past rights
Retroactive	Operates on existing rights from a past event (birth)

✔ 2005 amendment is retroactive:

Right existed by birth
Enforced after amendment

4️⃣ Effect of Earlier Partitions

Only valid partitions before 20-12-2004 are protected
Partition must be:
- By registered deed, or
- By court decree

❌ Oral partitions are not recognised

5️⃣ Equality & Constitutional Mandate

The Court strongly relied on:

Article 14 – Equality
Article 15 – Non-discrimination
Article 39 – Gender justice

📌 Strong Language Used

“The law cannot perpetuate discrimination on the ground of sex.”

🔹 PREVIOUS CASES DEALT WITH

❌ Overruled

Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)

✔️ Approved / Harmonised

Danamma v. Amar (2018)

🔹 FINAL CONCLUSIONS (POINT-WISE)

✔ Daughter is coparcener by birth
✔ Father’s death before 2005 is irrelevant
✔ Amendment is retroactive
✔ Married daughters have equal rights
✔ Only registered or decreed partitions before 20-12-2004 are valid

🔹 PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT

Situation	Result
Father died before 2005	Daughter still entitled
Daughter married	No effect
Oral partition before 2005	Invalid
Registered partition before 20-12-2004	Protected

🔹 HOW TO WRITE THIS IN MAINS (15 MARKS FORMAT)

Intro (2 marks)
The Constitution Bench in Vineeta Sharma settled the law on daughter’s coparcenary rights.

Law (5 marks)
Explain Section 6, amendment nature, constitutional principles.

Application (5 marks)
Apply to facts (father dead/alive, partition etc.)

Conclusion (3 marks)
Declare daughter’s entitlement.

🔹 ONE-LINE RATIO (VERY IMPORTANT)

A daughter is a coparcener by birth with the same rights and liabilities as a son, irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment.